Property- Who does it belong to?

A Brief Survey of the Church’s Social Teachings on Property Ownership, as evident from the Encyclicals since 1891. (Fr Pierre Goldie, June, 2011)
The Church supports the principle of private ownership, firmly rejects any socialist solution to poverty and inequalities (thereby rejecting nationalization), but insists it is the moral duty of those with surplus assets (including fixed property, goods and services) to enable the poor to procure what is needed (in accordance with the principle of the universal destination of goods). The Church does not suggest any formal, legal mechanism for dealing with the problem of poverty. The Teachings emphasise that Scripture and Tradition place a radical voluntary, moral onus on the rich to assist the poor. God will be the judge of the rich, who have a serious responsibility to account for the use of their riches. The Church does argue for the economy to be built on Gospel values, but does not posit a “third way” between capitalism and socialism.
Conclusion: It is scary to be rich!

SUMMARY (of 2.5 pages)
The Catholic Church confidently sees itself as Mother and Teacher of all nations (MM 1), a pillar and ground of truth. It communicates its social teachings in order to Christianise the conditions of the working classes (MM 7), to alleviate poverty and also to bring the Faith into politics. It continues the prophetic tradition of the Church of seeing and analysing the social situation, judging it in the light of Scripture and Tradition, and making pronouncements, judgements. This is the basis of the social doctrine, embodied in the milestone encyclical Rerum Novarum (1891) and the following documents up to Caritas in Veritate
(2007/9).
The Church’s social analysis in these documents unearths massive inequalities, a dispossessed, landless majority of poor, hunger in a world of plenty, domination of assets and large scale suffering.
The documents affirm the right to private ownership as originating in natural law. The Teachings discard socialism as a solution to poverty. No one can be a sincere Catholic as well as a true Socialist. The state may control certain assets or functions such as water, defence, fire control, but the principle of subsidiarity insists that general economic activities be undertaken by the people, not by any higher statutory body.
The various documents (eg CA 6, RN 7, SRS 39) do not see private ownership as an absolute principle. It is subject to a social mortgage, the principle of the universal destination of goods, namely that God gave the earth and its assets to the whole of the human race, thus the goods of creation are meant for all without favouring anyone. GS (9) states that everyone should consider their legitimate possessions as common property, to profit all. A person who is in extreme need has the right to procure for themselves what is needed, from the surplus of others. The CST documents do not define any overall mechanism to achieve this procurement, so the conclusion is that it must be voluntary.
The ownership of goods is thus distinguished from the correct use of goods. RN (18) argues that God will demand the strictest accounting from the rich for the use of their possessions. RN (19) notes how Aquinas also argues that one’s surplus should be used to relieve the poor. RN also highlights Biblical warnings to the rich (such as Mt 19:23-23, Lk 6:24-25). There is considerable comment in the Bible on property and riches. For example, Leviticus 25:8-17 postulates a Jubilee year in which every person returns freely to their ancestral property. The New Testament also has some dire warnings about the irresponsible use of riches (Eg Lk 16:19-31).
The Church does not argue for a compulsory transfer of assets from the rich to the poor. However, it argues definitively for the correct use of surpluses. There is an essential moral onus to use assets to help the poor, failing which there a damning spiritual consequences.

The Documents (Catholic Social Teaching = “CST”)

Rerum Novarum (“RN”, 1891. Encyclical Letter of Pope Leo XIII: on the condition of the working classes).
Quadragesimo Anno (“QA” 1931. Encyclical Letter of Pope Pius XI: on Social Reconstruction). Fortieth anniversary of RN.
Mater Et Magistra (“MM” 1961. Encyclical Letter of Pope John XXIII: A Re-evaluation Of The Social Question In The Light Of Christian Teaching). Sixtieth anniversary of RN.
Gaudium Et Spes (“GS” 1965. Second Vatican Council, Pastoral Constitution on the Church in the Modern World)
Populorum Progressio (“PP” 1967. Encyclical Letter of Pope Paul VI: On The Development of Peoples).
Sollicitudo Rei Socialis (“SRS” 1987. Encyclical Letter of Pope John II: On The Social Concern Of The Church). Twentieth anniversary of PP.
Centissimus Annus (“CA” 1991. Encyclical Letter of Pope John Paul II: On the Hundredth Anniversary Of Rerum Novarum).
Caritas In Veritate (“CV” 2007/9. Encyclical Letter of Pope Benedict XVI: Charity in Truth). Fortieth anniversary of PP.

The Church as Teacher
The Church sees itself as Mother and Teacher of all nations (MM 1), a pillar and ground of truth, and refers to the outstanding example of the Church’s Catholic Teaching embodied in RN, on the Christianizing of the conditions of the working classes (MM 7).
RN (1) speaks out on the radically changed conditions in the world and the need for the Church to point out problems. In the introduction of QA and in RN (13) the Popes insist that it is the right and duty of the Church to deal with social and economic problems. Issues of morality and economics are not separate. Pope Benedict’s CV is a religious evaluation of economic issues. In an address on May 16th 2011(Zenit http://www.zenit.org/article-32584?I=english) he calls for the evangelization of the economy, whilst in another address (Zenit, 8th May 2011 – http://www.zenit.org/article-32517?I=english), he states that Christians need to bring the values of their faith into every sphere of life, including politics.
QA (5) argues that the social order needs to be reconstructed according to the principles of the Gospel and sound philosophy. MM(205) notes the failure to acknowledge the moral order which is transcendent, absolute and universally binding upon all in the world arena. The Church sees itself as an expert in humanity, as Christ was the perfect human being, and as humans are made in the image of God, entitled to an unassailable dignity.
Conditions in the World
RN was inspired by the poor plight of the workers, a result of the powerful wave of industrialization and the extensive changes made to the economic systems in the West. QA, forty years later (1931), observed a far greater division between the small number of wealthy and the large number of poor. QA (pg 3) and RN (35) note that in many industrialized countries, there are huge numbers of dispossessed labouring masses and rural labourers, who have no hope of sharing in the land.
There is also a hand-to-mouth uncertainty in terms of food security for so many. The late John Paul II often commented on Lukan parable of Lazarus and the rich man (Luke 16:19-31), a drama of indifference now being played out on a global scale, suggesting the future generations (and God) will condemn this generation for neglecting the poor.
Free competition has led to long term domination of assets by the few. MM (11) observes how personal gain, considered only for the motive of individual economic prosperity, lacks the essential moral dimension. It points out the enormous riches accumulated by the few and wide-spread and ever increasing hardship (MM 13 as well). It also notes a gross disproportion between land and population, particularly in some countries (MM 153). RN (2) refers to conditions of “pitiable and utterly undeserved misery” of so many workers, of conditions little no better than slavery, reflecting the worst of the plight of workers at the start of the Industrial Revolution in the West.
CV (2009) continues the prophetic role of the Church by observing the human situation (See), judging it in the light of Scripture and Tradition (Judge), and making pronouncements (Act, taking action). It praises RN, and especially PP (1967) and SRS (1987), noting the cry of the poor, suffering, hungry, and the huge inequalities.
The Right to Property
A person has a right to property from natural law (RN 5, 6), but subject also to qualifications by divine revelation. QA (1) notes how RN defends the right to private property as against socialism, where all property is collectively held. Again, MM (109) affirms the right to private ownership as being permanently valid. It argues that the Bible also sanctions private ownership, but exhorts the rich to help the poor (MM 121). The state cannot suppress private ownership of property (MM 19).
A person, using their initiative and by working, can imprint on property an imprint of themselves and so has the right to possess that property (RN 7). Using their talents and freedom and intelligence, workers are able to “subdue the earth” to work, as commanded by the Bible (Gen 1:28), to make the world a fitting home. This forms the basis of the right to private ownership.
The documents express surprise that some still deny the validity of this right to freehold possession (RN 8). To deny this right, is to deny the fruit of the person’s labour from that property “stained with his sweat”. RN (8) also quotes Deuteronomy (5:21) which warns against coveting one’s neighbour’s property. The lack of opportunity to dispose or acquire property (possessions) robs wage-earners of the freedom to better their condition (RN 4).
A wage-earner is also entitled to leave income yielding property to their family and this right is prior to the state’s right. RN (19) also refers to Aquinas, who avers that it is legitimate and necessary to possess things as one’s own.
Role of the State
All the documents discard any form of socialism as a solution to poverty and the uneven distribution of goods. RN (4) argues that transferring privately owned goods to common ownership worsens the condition of the wage earner. The State must not interfere with the family right, but may adjudicate where there is conflict (RN 11). Before the state came in to existence, people had already received from nature the right to make provision for their livelihood (RN 6).
The right to ownership may not be a rigid one, but the state may not take away a person’s right of possession of property by inheritance. The state, which is preceded by the person, not the other way around, may attempt to control certain property for the sake of the common good, without, however, imposing “crushing taxes”. Certain forms of property need to be reserved by the state because they carry the opportunity for domination by individuals to the detriment of the common good. (such as defence, fire control).
MM (52) sees a justifiable role for civil authority in the economy. But this is subject to the principle of subsidiarity, a maxim which must not be usurped. The state needs to ensure the common good of all and thus cannot entirely aloof from economic matters. But the socialist doctrine of common ownership is altogether repudiated (RN 12). QA insists that the term Catholic and Socialist are contradictory terms. While socialism contains an element of truth, it is opposed to true Christianity.” “Religious Socialism, “Christian Socialism” are expressions implying a contradictions in terms. No one can be at the same time a sincere Catholic and a true Socialist” (QA pg 58 – St Paul Publications- Africa).
Universal Destination of Goods
God has given the earth to the whole of the human race, but this does not invalidate private ownership (RN 7). SRS (39) confirms the principle of the Universal Destination of all Goods, in other words, the goods of the world are meant for all. Thus private property is under a social mortgage, which means it has an intrinsically social function, based on and justified by the principle of the universal destination of goods (SRS 42). It is the right of all people to be seated at the common banquet (SRS 33).
CA (30) acknowledges the possession of goods, marked by freedom but also subordinate to their common destination. The use of goods has a vital social function based on the common purpose of goods, to provide for the livelihood of all. God has given the earth to all members of the human race without favouring anyone (CA 31). God wants the earth to provide for all people, thus the universal destination of goods must always be heeded (GS 69).
GS (69) more boldly claims that everyone should consider their legitimate possessions as common property to profit not only themselves but others as well. All have the right to possess earthly goods sufficient for themselves and families. A person who is in extreme need has the right to procure for themselves what is needed, from the riches of others. The document does not elaborate on the method of such “procurement”, but it seems clear, given the aversion to socialism, that this would take place by means of a voluntary donation, not by any state enforced means. Perhaps taxation is seen as a means of redistribution.
Thus all the main documents call for a better distribution of the world’s goods, noting the severe imbalance in the distribution of goods in the world. In 2000, some 86.5% of the world national output was consumed by 20% of the world population, 12% by the next 60%, and 1.5% by the bottom 20%. It is unlikely that this distribution has changed much. There is always a social function inherent in private ownership in the sense that the world’s goods are intended for the whole human race (MM 119). The right to property cannot invalidate the principle that the goods given by God for humanity should flow to all alike (MM 43).
CA (6) also confirms that private ownership is not an absolute value and that the universal destination of goods is an essential complementary principle.
The Use of Property
The ownership of goods must be distinguished by the correct USE of goods. RN (18) argues that “God will demand the strictest accounting for the use they (the rich) make of their possessions”, and refers to Matthew 19:23,24 (on the obstacle riches can be to entering heaven), and Luke’s warning that the rich are having their consolation now, and face reckoning in the end (Luke 6:24, 25). RN (19) also notes how Aquinas writes that there is a duty to use what is surplus to one’s needs (to “necessity and seemliness”) to relieve the poor. QA (1) supports the distinction between ownership and the right use of property.
When a person’s needs are satisfied, the surplus should be used to help the poor. QA sees it as an obligation to use the surplus for charity, as required by the Bible and Tradition of the Church. CA (6) concurs that private ownership is not an absolute value. While the use of goods is marked by freedom, it is subordinate to their common destination.